Exactly right. This is Conroy chucking a hissy fit, attempting a vindictive and conceited payback for Google's accurate commentary re: his pet 'Filter OZ' project, and trying to leverage what remains of his crippled credibility to boost the same. The guy is so adolescent it's laughable. Please Conroy - just fuck off and die: that's seriously the best advice I can offer you.

I wish we had a Telecommunications Interception Act in the United States, and they'd investigate whether collecting IP addresses from bittorrent trackers was done for a purpose authorized by the bittorrent tracker.

You are sending your IP address to a tracker, which then sends the information to the copyright enforcers. Once it arrives on the **AA pc's, it's no longer on the Australian Telecommunications network, and therefore no longer covered by the Telecommunications Interception Act.

Is this the world's favorite new way to waste time, suing google for recording publicly available information from wifi spots as they drive?

I hope they prosecute the pants off them. Suppose it wasn't Google but Microsoft. Would you still be happy for them to be intentionally gathering data (be it records of who has which WiFi device or the actual conversations) just because the electromagnetic fields were leaking through your walls? After all, the heat radiation that escapes through your walls and windows is "publicly available" so surely it'd be ok for them to sit outside with a thermal camera pointed at your house. And the sound radiation that leaks through too -- so there'd be "no problem" with them pointing very sensitive directional microphones towards your bedroom window and recording that too... I mean, it's just your own silly fault for not installing a lead-lined cone of silence over your bed...

No, this is just slashdot giving Google a free pass (Slashdot's Google love-in), even though Google explicitly intended to gather and sell data about you without your permission. Their excuse is "oops, we didn't mean to gather quite that much data" not that they didn't mean to do it at all.

You see, there's a big difference between say, a normal Wifi card and your sensitive directional microphone. Driving past with a friggin $20 wifi card, I can pickup all your *open* wifi traffic. Nearly every laptop these days already has this inbuilt anyway. How many laptops do you know with inbuilt hyper-sensitive directional microphones that can pickup somebody's conversation inside a house.

Actually, as somebody who's played with this stuff, I can tell you that you have no idea what you're even talking about. Do you realise how hard it is to actually pick up a single conversation from outside a house.

Very easy. I can sit on my back deck and hear conversations going on in the four houses surrounding us. Most people don't shut their windows, and some even have lunch on their back decks, nattering away perhaps 2 metres from me with no walls in between. That their conversation is audible in public does not give me permission to record and sell who was having conversations with whom and when, let alone "accidentally" record the words that were spoken.

Driving past with a friggin $20 wifi card, I can pickup all your *open* wifi traffic.

It's about reasonable expectations. You can reasonably assume that someone nearby has an ear. Maybe even two. You can also reasonably assume that they will be able to hear you if youtalk at normal volume.

You would not normally be listening with an electronic listening and recording device, or a laser microphone (which simply detects publicly visible vibrations), or climbing a tree in a public area purely in order to see you naked in your back yard.

Likewise, you don't expect people to be arbitrarily scanning for wireless data.

Perhaps you don't, in which case I would expect you to be regularly checking your bank accounts and frequently changing your passwords. On the other hand, I, and many like me, fully expect people to attempt to intercept and decrypt our wireless communications, if for no other reason than to use our internet access without our consent. Consequently, we take steps to make such efforts fruitless. In other words, you may not want "people" to be arbitrarily scanning your wireless data, but you damned well should

If two people are in a public place, and I put an omnidirectional microphone down and happen to record them, I doubt I can be charged with anything really.

Heck, if I sit down on a bench and start dictating notes into my DVR (Digital Voice Recorder), and I happen to catch the people on the bench next to me talking about State of Origin, do you really think they're going to turn around and sue me?

Australian police arrest a subject for illegal surveillance for overhearing another party's conversation, and making a record of it in a carbon-based mass-storage device, while walking down the street.

Clarified that. Wait, I see someone walking down my street recording images of what he sees, in his own carbon-based mass-storage device. Calling 911 right now...

...that as an American, I'm looking to Europe and Australia to actually stand up to Google and stop them from collecting every bit of data they can about me, like actually sending a van outside my house to grab information about my home network.

You're actively broadcasting information about your home network and then complaining when somebody listens. That's like setting up a facebook account and then whining when somebody looks at it or talking very loudly in a room and complaining when people listen. You're being absurd!

Why not just use a wired network? I don't like broadcasting my information to the world so I exclusively use wired network connections. You on the other hand also don't like broadcasting your information to the world but keep

I totally agree with this response. If you want to prevent the people you don't want hearing you from hearing you, then keep the chatter-box shut. It starts with you. It ends with you. No one is in control of you except... you.

I'm not actively broadcasting anything - my router is. It may seem like a silly distinction, but as far as I'm concerned, all I want is private wireless service in the confines of my own home. The fact that my router is sending out information beyond the bounds of my home is an unfortunate side effect of physics.

I didn't kill the man - my gun did. The fact that my gun is sending out bullets beyond the bounds of its barrel is an unfortunate side effect of physics."

Yes you are. You connected a fairly powerful radio transceiver to your computer and (for some unaccountable reason) expect it to be treated as if it were a bunch of cables coming out of an Ethernet switch. Dude, it's a transmitter, and it broadcasts, and if you have any expectation that the world will respect your privacy when you're broadcasting data beyond the confines of your own home, well, you're not too bright. Doesn't matter if we're talking a WAP or just a regular Internet connection... if you put

Err, you said you want a "private wireless service"...what part of TURN ON THE DAMN PASSWORD doesn't make sense?

Sorry, but if you want a private wireless service, then turn on the password. Pretty much all routers these days make it a *very* seamless process. Having setup many routers for many friends/family friends/cats/dogs/budgies, most of them provide a wizard which actually prompts you for a password.

If you're silly enough to ignore that, or refuse to read your 3-step wizard (yes, I've seen people

Why are you assuming that Google is only scanning for open WiFi Routers? My understanding is that they are scanning *all* routers, whether they are secure or not (mine is secured - I also turned off SSID broadcasting. Thanks for the condescension, though). Just because your router is "secure" doesn't mean Google can't get information about it, like the SSID and MAC address.

...that as an American, I'm looking to Europe and Australia to actually stand up to Google and stop them from collecting every bit of data they can about me, like actually sending a van outside my house to grab information about my home network.

Don't fear Google. Fear me. I could be your neighbor. As of last week, my laptop could see about two dozen wireless access points. Most of those were encrypted. A handful aren't. The unencrypted ones aren't too chatty. One is fairly busy. I would hazard to guess that very few of my neighbors are aware that I can see them much less are looking. If one of them did suspect the possibility, I'd guess it was one of those who's network is encrypted.

This is what amazes me about this whole incident. Not one official person (other than from Google) has even once mentioned that people should protect their privacy by putting passwords on their Wifi access points.

On the radio just today, Stephen Conroy said that Google may have captured people doing "sensitive banking transactions" as they drove past, as if it would be perfectly safe for them if only Google hadn't driven past and captured the data. Overlooking that all banking transactions are done over https, Conroy was effectively advising people that extremely risky behavior is perfectly OK. There is a level of extreme hypocrisy about the whole debate that leads me to believe this is 100% a witch hunt primarily designed to distract from the government's own desire to violate our privacy.

Overlooking that all banking transactions are done over https, Conroy was effectively advising people that extremely risky behavior is perfectly OK. There is a level of extreme hypocrisy about the whole debate that leads me to believe this is 100% a witch hunt primarily designed to distract from the government's own desire to violate our privacy.

It does strike me as being quite telling. These are worse thinking scenarios dreamed up to scare the horses. To what ends is an interesting question.

Google did nothing wrong by accidentally keeping un-secured information. This information was being broadcast over open wi-fi connections past the boundary of private property onto public property. Ignorance of security measures you can take is not an excuse. If I do not replace the brakes to my car regularly because I failed to read the maintenance schedule in the manual, it is not anyone elses fault but my own. Same thing with securing your wi-fi network. By default not securing your wi-fi network means t

It's possible to detect private conversations from a considerable distance away using appropriate equipment. Is it acceptable to use this to listen in on conversations if they're not talking in code?

I'm not sure of your brakes analogy. If they fail to stop your car it isn't through the action of an outside agency. If you fail to lock your car doors, then whose fault is it if someone steals your radio?

Part of being in a public place is that you accept the risk being overheard. The thing about Wi-fi networks is that there are many publicly available networks out there that allow people to use them. How are we to distinguish if its OK to use some of them but not others if people are too lazy to go through the necessary steps to secure their networks? Just by using someones public network you can intercept their communications. Having a public network you broadcast your data over is akin to leaving a basket full of stuff outside with a sign that says "Some things in here are free but Im not telling you what is or isnt, take these items at your own risk". Now, Google admitted that they accidentally kept extra data they should not have, and then promptly agreed to delete all of it. They were not doing what they were doing as a form of surveillance. Its pretty much the same thing as video taping a public place, accidentally taping someone talking about private business and then deleting that portion of the tape once you realize whats on it.

Both of you are quite right and one of you is breaking Australian privacy laws. The problem here is that everything hangs on the definition of what a "reasonable person" would expect of their privacy. I posted an example the the other slashdot google article then went through the Australian legal system:
1. Girl standing at her bedroom window naked gets photographed from the street. She's in her own home but in plain view of the street -> Fine. You have not right to privacy because any reasonable person

How are we to distinguish if its OK to use some of them but not others if people are too lazy to go through the necessary steps to secure their networks?

I would go with "They are public so I can use them" and "They are not public so I will not use them unless I want to break some law or other".

As you can see a perfectly good way of telling what a public network is already exists. Why add another layer on top of that to complicate things.

In many countries (Australia included) you would be dead wrong. Any network even if open and unprotected requires you have permission from the owners of the network to connect to it otherwise you are in breach of the Telecommunications ACT. Just because someone leaves there front door unlocked does not give you the right to enter.

The correct answer is, if your unsure if it truly public and open then assume it isn't regardless of how crap the admins of the network are.

Australia has some backwards laws. Apparently politicians there have even less technology understanding than here in the US. Its easy to accidentally "sniff" packets. You could use have made a minor coding error that did this, and then not have realized it till your hard drives where filling up too early. Its what you do with that information that should determine the legal ramifications. For example, if you find someones wallet in their front yard and return it, then you are not breaking the law. If you fi

How about: If I'm in my house and I'm yelling so loudly that I can be heard from the street, I no longer have any expectation of privacy to prevent my neighbor from recording it(perhaps as the basis for a noise complaint).

I can't hold the opposite position too strongly though, as I do find it objectionable to use thermographic cameras as a basis for search warrants, but that's just some people can't tell the difference between a sauna and a grow-op./has a sauna.

For certain values of "sensitive"... You can't pick it up unaided. You also probably won't pick it up on a radio (unless you have one that can be tuned to the right frequency). The point is, it's something you actually have to look for. Loud noises you'll detect passively.

Ah, but what if they had been sniffing "encrypted" packets too? In the hope that one day their computing power would be sufficient to decrypt them. Or if they had been sniffing DECT packets, knowing that the encryption is weak?

What security measures are "good enough" that they convey an expectation of privacy?

*WHOOSH* That's the sound of the importance of users' MAC addresses being publicized flying over my head. Why should anybody be concerned if the RIAA, or Google, or anybody else knows your MAC address?

I fail to see how your NIC's MAC address can be used to extract sensitive or private information. I don't know of any way that it can be cross-referenced or traced. Whenever you are requesting information from a server, doesn't every hop along the way replace the "source MAC address" in the IP packet heade

IPV6 is still an *IP* address, not the Media Access Control address [wikipedia.org], the hardware address for your NIC. That said, while a MAC address *is* theoretically unique to a NIC, it can easily be spoofed. However dont confuse it with IPV6

Rupert Murdoch thinks that Google should pay him for sending business his way, and the governments of the wold want to find some vague wrongdoing to levy a big fine over.

If you have been in a cave for the past few years, what Google is doing is collecting data to improve their Google Maps functionality. They took pictures to add "street view" so that you can see what the place you are trying to find actually looks like. They logged SSIDs so that your wifi device

I wish Rupert would go swimming in shark infested waters. Maybe Green Peace will do some chumming nearby. Wait - no - Green Peace loves nature, they wouldn't poison any unsuspecting sharks. I should contact Anon with this idea then? They wouldn't mind a few poisoned sharks, I would think.

It's not greed...unfortunately. It's because the minister in charge of communication is a petulant 5 year old. He has a wooley idea that filtering all internet traffic by using a black list system would be the best way to stop kiddie porn. Unfortunately he hasn't seemed to answer the detailed questions, of how exactly this is going to help.Anyway google may have mentioned that his actions were at odds with free speech (particularly since we dont get to see what is on the black list) and that Australia would

Personally I don't give a shit one way or the other. MS or Google. If the info you have in public, is being broadcast in public, that's your own responsibility. Much like info in the phonebook, you can opt out of that. And other things, there is this thing at least in most western countries called "public/semi-public access" which applies to crossing off the sidewalk onto your property. Personally the second that you start to broadcast off private/semi-private property, it's your own problem.

Of course he did. He referred the matter to the AFP. The investigation is at his request.

I worry about the precedent that this case may set, if the sharks are allowed to smell blood in the water. If it's illegal to receive unencrypted broadcast packets on a public spectrum, what does that say about common devices which bind to the first available open network?

Hopefully sense will prevail in the courts.

Conroy is not a canny enough politician to be taking on Google's public affairs team, so hopefully

The law they allegedly broke, has nothing to do with RF or open networks. It has everything to do with the Telecommunications Interception Act.

It's a very specific law which they broke.

Ever wonder why every single call centre you call gives you a warning you may be recorded for training purposes? The real reason is if they don't say you may be recorded, they would be breaking the same law that Google broke. It's got nothing to do with networks and everything to do with the Australian Telecommunications Netw

As a respected ICT professional let me provide you some feedback. Nothing you have done in your tenure as has materially improved our nation. In fact you are making Australia the laughing stock of of the ICT profession world wide.

I understand that in this instance that the opposition ministers are also acting naively for cheap political gain, yet as the portfolio holder, I would expect you to provide some leadership and common sense.

Its not *just* about doing the so called right thing and standing up to Google. Remember Oz is not far from the Great Firewall of China. Left for Dead 2 is censored different to the rest of the 1st World(outside of the German Sensitivities of violent games), Linden Labs have their own Second Life servers in OZ in readiness that their game is deemed "Offensive" by the govt and they can manage content, and was home to the WikiLeaks being blacklisted on the OZ Great Firewall because they displeased the Admini

Odd. In Canada, it's the other way round. All of the laws restricting speech were written and passed by Liberal governments. The one time martial law (the ultimate censorship) was declared, it was by a Liberal Prime Minister.

Someone taking a snapshot of me while I walk down the street is perfectly legal and fine.
Someone following me with a camera is creepy and possibly illegal.
Someone following me with a disguised camera, talking pictures while pretending to do something else?

It's all a matter of scale.

Accidentally(?) recording a few snippets of open WiFi isn't much of a problem.
Doing it globally is.

The problem is the TIA act in Australia forbids unauthorised interception of *any* medium that forms part of the Australian Telecommunications Network, which your home network does in fact form part of.

This is a massive deal under Australian law. There is a specific law that specifically prohibits what Google did. So, yes, recording even a single packet is a massive deal under this law.

The level of understanding of Internet issues displayed by the Australian Communications Minister is stunning.

Ted Stevens: the Internet is a series of tubes.Stephen Conroy: unsecured wireless access points are transparent tubes that it is a deep invasion of privacy to look through.

Dear Minister: Driving past a house and picking up traffic on an unsecured wireless network is like walking past the house of a stupid person who is using his hands-free phone by standing on the roof of his house and shouting a co

People, please note that the investigation by the police will be focusing on the Telecommunications Interception Act which governs the interception (inadvertant or otherwise) of anything that is traversing over the Australian Telecommunications Network.

The ATN is any medium and communications device that is directly connected to any Australian infrastructure. This includes all your home routers, all telephones and any other communications medium.

No regards to laws? That's a rather over the top statement. It seems they have some regard for laws, considering they're cooperating with authorities. They've admitted they made a mistake, and have apologised for it. What else do you want them to do, publicly flagellate themselves?

No respect for privacy? Sure, I guess that's why they have a privacy policy. It's because they have no respect for it. Yeah, that's it.

I can't believe the rhetoric that is being spouted in the above post. Is it a Microsoft